European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

An appeal may be brought against a decision of the General Court by lodging an application at the Registry of the General Court or of the Court of Justice . The General Court decision subject of the appeal must be annexed to the application . An appeal must contain:
- the name and address of the appellant,
- the names of the other parties to the proceedings before the General Court,
- the pleas in …

Admissibility conditions

An appeal may be brought against a decision of the General Court by lodging an application at the Registry of the General Court or of the Court of Justice . The General Court decision subject of the appeal must be annexed to the application . An appeal must contain:

- the names of the other parties to the proceedings before the General Court,

- the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on ,

- the form of order sought by the appellant.

An appeal may seek to set aside, in whole or part, the decision of the General Court, or the same form of order as that sought at first instance. The subject-matter of the proceedings is the same as before the General Court . That does not mean that the applicants may confine themselves to reproducing the arguments and pleas in law submitted to the General Court . An appeal is to be limited to points of law , since the Court of Justice cannot substitute its assessment for that of the General Court . It must thus indicate precisely the contested elements of the decision which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal , without it being necessary for the purposes of determining the admissibility to draw a distinction between arguments submitted in the application and those submitted in the proceedings before the Commission . When undertakings claim a distortion of the evidence by the General Court, they must identify that evidence precisely and demonstrate the analytical errors that they believe led the Court to such a distortion . Undertakings must show that the Court has clearly exceeded the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence and not that it is merely possible to interpret it differently . However, the Court of Justice may substitute its own assessment for that of the General Court to rule on the amount of fines imposed  if it considers that the level of the penalty is not merely inappropriate but also excessive to the point of being disproportionate .

Within two months after service of notice of appeal, any party to the proceedings before the General Court may lodge a response. A response may seek either to dismiss, in whole or part, the appeal or to set aside, in whole or part, the decision of the General Court, or the same form of order as that sought at first instance. A reply may be submitted by the appellant when the response seeks to set aside, in whole or in part, the decision on a plea in law which was not raised in the appeal. An intervention may be upheld before the Court of Justice where the person intervening establishes an interest in the result of the case and its application, even if based on a new argumentation, is to be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties .

Where the appeal is clearly inadmissible  or unfounded, the Court of Justice may, by reasoned order, dismiss it, in whole or in part . Regardless of whether the appeal is founded or unfounded, the Court gives a final decision as to the dispute and the costs. However, where the outcome is likely to involve factual assessments, it must, after setting aside the judgment, refer the case back to the General Court . The oral part of the procedure may be dispensed by the Court of Justice -unless one of the parties submits an application setting out the reasons it wishes to be heard- within one month from the close of the written procedure.

Within two months from the notification of the decision.

By contrast, it is irrelevant whether all the documents to which the appeal refers were not annexed to the appeal where no legal text provides for this and it does not prejudice the other party, See Case C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris v Commission [2002] ECR I-9297, LawLex200400003034JBJ.

Case C-403/18 P Alcogroup and Alcodis, Judgment of 17 October 2019, not available in English.

Case C-609/13 P Duravit AG, Judgment of 26 January 2017, LawLex201700001078JBJ; Case C-619/13 P Mamoli Robinetteria SpA, Judgment of 26 January 2017, not available in English.

C-89/11 P E.ON Energie AG, Judgment of 22 November 2012, LawLex201200002347JBJ; Case C-469/15 P FSL Holdings NV, Judgment of 27 April 2017, LawLex201700000763JBJ.

Case C-235/92 P Montecatini v Commission [1999] ECR I-4539, LawLex200500003912JBJ.

In particular if an event subsequent to the contested decision removes the prejudicial effect thereof and makes the appeal devoid of purpose, See Case C-19/93 P Rendo and others v Commission [1995] ECR I-3319, LawLex200500003995JBJ.

See in particular Case C-341/00 P Conseil national des professions de l'automobile and others v Commission [2001] ECR I-5263, LawLex200500003889JBJ; Case C-497/99 P Irish Sugar v Commission [2001] ECR I-5333, LawLex200400003026JBJ; Case C-241/00 P Kish Glass v Commission [2001] ECR I-7759, LawLex200500003887JBJ.

Case C-99/17 P Infineon Technologies AG, Judgment of 26 September 2018, LawLex201800001406JBJ.

Only the pleas argued before the CFI may be examined as part of an appeal, Case C-51/92 P Hercules Chemicals v Commission [1999] ECR I-4235, LawLex200500003913JBJ; Case C-101/07 P Coop de France bétail and viande v Commission, LawLex200900000085JBJ.

However, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to re-examine the initial request, See Case C-338/00 P Volkswagen v Commission [2003] ECR I-9189, LawLex200500003861JBJ. In addition a new plea not based on legal or factual elements raised during the proceedings is inadmissible, see Case C-101/07 P Coop de France bétail and viande v Commission, [2008] ECR I-10193, LawLex200900000085JBJ.

Case C-401/96 P Somaco v Commission [1998] ECR I-2587, LawLex200400003611JBJ; Case C-204/00 P Aalborg Portland and others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, LawLex200400003525JBJ.

Examples of admissible points of law include: substantive inaccuracy, Case C-8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I-3175, LawLex200500003922JBJ; distortion of material facts, Case C-101/07 P Coop de France bétail and viande v Commission, LawLex200900000085JBJ; review of the contradictory and inadequate character of the grounds of the judgment under appeal, Case C-401/96 P Somaco v Commission [1998] ECR I-2587, LawLex200400003611JBJ.

Case C-468/07 P Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission [2008] ECR I-127, LawLex200900000161JBJ.

Case C-8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I-3175, LawLex200500003922JBJ; Case C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris v Commission [2002] ECR I-9297, LawLex200400003034JBJ.

Case 298/83 CICCE v Commission [1985] ECR 1105, LawLex200500003905JBJ.

Case C-591/18 P Brugg Kabel AG, Judgment of 28 November 2019, not available in English.

European Competition Law

282. Admissibility conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

282. Admissibility conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise